Persistent Handwriting Difficulties in Children With ADHD After Treatment With Stimulant Medication
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Children with ADHD often present with handwriting difficulties. However, the extent to which motor and attention skills influence performance in this group has not yet been explored. The objective of this study was to examine the factors associated with change in handwriting performance. METHOD: This study examines the factors associated with change in handwriting performance of 49 children newly diagnosed with ADHD (mean age = 8.4 [SD=1.3] years) prior to and 3 months following use of a stimulant medication. RESULTS: Handwriting legibility and speed improved significantly at follow-up evaluation. However, most of the children with legibility difficulties at baseline continued to demonstrate difficulties when evaluated 3 months after initiation of medication. Change in handwriting legibility was best determined by improvements in visual-motor integration skills (β = 0.07-0.10; p < .001), while the change in speed did not appear to be consistently related to a single factor. CONCLUSION: Handwriting difficulties are common in children with ADHD, and medication alone is not sufficient to resolve these challenges.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".